I have a good 289 and want to know if it will bolt up to the tranny in my 83 f150 4x4 and would there be any other problems?

 

What tranny do you have . Why going to a 289? Is the 289 6 bolt bellhousing or older 5 bolt? You are going to be working it pretty hard in a full size pickup.

 

I'm not sure about the 289 but the 351 has a knock so I thought I would drop the289 in until I can rebuild the 351

 

You are going to have to buy a rear sump oil pan for the 289. Possibly the oil pump pickup tube and main bearing support stud from the 351w will work, but if they don't, you will have to buy them too.

And a flexplate to match the 289.

Then you need to scope out the dipstick. If the rear sump pan has the dipstick, you are fine. If it's doesn't, then you need to find a spot to put the dipstick in the rear of the block. I didn't think the older blocks had a spot, but someone a couple of weeks ago on here had a 70's block that had a hole with a plug in it, and they were able to knock that out and put their rear dipstick in it.

I would also check out what the other poster said about the bellhousing pattern. The very early 289's had an oddball 5 bolt bellhousing pattern.

 

I thought the 289 and the 302 were the same motor?? Same motor as in the 6.9 and the 7.3 idi

 

Remember we are talking about a Ford here. They must have had an engineering department like we have were I work. If it's simple and makes sense, they can't do that, because it's not enough "engineering" involved. They have to make it complicated so they can justify their jobs.

 

289 and 302 only look the same like the 6.9 and 7.3 only look the same. The 289 never had a place for a dipstick other than in the timing cover. If it where me I would find a decent 351w in a salvage yard and plant that between your fenders. That heavy truck especially with 4x4 will kill the poor 289. There are a lot of car restorers looking for 289s, if you have a good running one it should be worth a few bucks. Just my $.04 (gotta adjust for inflation)

 

Ain't that the truth.

 

289: 1963/68. The 302 was introduced in the spring of 1968.

289: Passenger cars which includes Ranchero's, 1966/68 Bronco's.

The early engines: 1963 thru August 23, 1964 have 5 flywheel housing holes.

The waterpump and timing cover used with this early engine are not the same as the later 289.

From August 23, 1964 thru 1968: 6 flywheel housing holes.

 

So a 302 isn't a 289 bored out., and 1DieselMan unless I'm confused isn't the 7.3 a 6.9 bored out, I know I know there are subtle differences, but overall you could turn a 6.9 into a 7.3 right??

 

289 and 302 both have a 4" bore. 289 has a 2.87" stroke, 302 has a 3" stroke. I built a 289 using crank and rods from a '66 289 and a '73 302 block along with '69 351W heads.

I love the 289's but I agree with the others, you or the 289 won't be happy if you install it in a heavy truck.

 

302s used a slightly longer cylinder to accomodate the 3 inch stroke vs. the 2.87 for the 289. You'll need 4.11s or 4.56s to get it moving.

 

I guess I better rebuild my 351

 

From a simplistic point of view, yes the 289 and the 302 are based on the same engine design. It's all the little stuff that gets you.

They even had different harmonic balancers. The 289's and the early 302's had a 3 bolts that hold the lower pulley on, while the later ones used 4 bolts. This problem seems to have a solution, till you try to use a old 3 bolt pulley with the later 80's truck pulleys to match the 80's accessories. They may or may not match up.

 

The 6.9 and 7.3 share the same crankshaft, connecting rods, gear train and heads (and we're not talk about 93-94 factory turbo engine) I don't know right off hand if you can bore a 6.9 block out to 7.3 and still have enough cylinder wall thickness. that might be possible on the 86-87 block.